Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 172 (AP)

Nakka Nimmi Grace v. State of A. P.

2025-01-28

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : (V. SUJATHA, J.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “ Cr.P.C .”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.325 of 2019 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)(w) (ii) 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short “the Act”). 2. Accused Nos.4, 2 and 3 are the petitioners herein and the 2 nd respondent is the complainant. 3. The 2 nd respondent lodged a report before the Dowlaeswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, alleging that after the complainant filed an SC, ST case against the accused persons, they threatened the complainant over phone for withdrawal of the case. On 24.10.2019, one A1-Ramakrishna made a Whatsapp call to the complainant and abused in filthy language and demanded to fulfill his sexual lust, and threatened to file a false case, if she refuses. On 25.10.2019, at about 10.00 a.m., while the complainant along with her two daughters and driver Siva Prasad were waiting on a road to go to Kakinada, A1-Ramakrishna, telephoned her and threatened that if she did not withdraw the case against the petitioners herein and accused No.1, he will commit suicide and abused her in filthy language by touching her caste name and thereby threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.325 of 2019 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)(w) (ii) 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 . 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even if the allegations in the report are accepted to be true at their face value, no offence under Section 354 A, 506 and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii) 3 (2) (va) of the Act, is made out against the petitioners as the incident did not take place within public view. Further, the petitioners, who are arrayed as A.3 and A.4 respectively, belong to the Scheduled Caste “MALA” and thereby, no offence is made out against them. Further, the petitioners, who are arrayed as A.3 and A.4 respectively, belong to the Scheduled Caste “MALA” and thereby, no offence is made out against them. He further submits that for the purpose of extracting money, the 2 nd respondent-complainant, taking advantage of her profession as advocate and her caste name, is in the habit of lodging false complaints, and extracting money from the innocent people. He further submits that earlier the 2 nd respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners in Crime No.192 of 2019 on the very same set of facts, against which the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.6574 of 2019 wherein stay of all further proceedings was granted as such the 2 nd respondent bore grudge against the petitioners lodged the present crime with the similar set of facts and on that ground alone, the proceedings have to be set aside, and he prays for quashing the proceedings. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, would contend that the issue as to whether the said incident took place within public view or not is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be investigated by the police. He submits that it is impermissible for the High Court to look into the documents filed along with the petition, as the acceptability of which is essentially a matter of trial and that this court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C . and stall the investigation at the threshold. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.325 of 2019 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C .?” 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C . confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: 10. In “ R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ] ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: “(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 11. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 . It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “ Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar , [ AIR 1990 SC 494 ] ” 12. In “ State of Haryana v. BhajanLal , [ 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 14. In the case on hand, the main issue that arises for consideration is whether the grounds urged by the 2 nd respondent in the complaint contained the necessary ingredients of the penal provisions under Section 354A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii) 3 (2) (va) of the Act, established prima facie case against the petitioners. The law is well settled that it is always open for the court to interfere by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C ., if there are no prima facie grounds to proceed with the prosecution. The law is well settled that it is always open for the court to interfere by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C ., if there are no prima facie grounds to proceed with the prosecution. For this purpose, it is necessary to refer to Section 354A IPC, which reads as under: 354A: Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment:- 1) A man committing any of the following acts— i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. 1) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub- section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 503. Criminal intimidation. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Section 3 (1)(w) (ii) 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 , which reads thus: (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- ……………… (w) (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipients consent; (ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- ………. (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine; 15. A reading of the provisions extracted above would go to show that the ingredients of the Sections under the provisions of SC ST Act get attracted only where a person, who does not belong to a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribes, intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient consent; who uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to SC/ST. 16. In the case on hand, a perusal of the entire allegations made in the complaint and the material on record would, prima facie, show that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein, except bald allegations that the petitioners/accused abused her in filthy language by touching her caste name. Assuming that the entire allegations of the complaint are accepted to be true at their face value, they do not constitute the ingredients of any of the alleged offences, more so, when the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 themselves belong to Schedule Caste people and the incident took place in the house of the 2 nd respondent-complainant where there was no public view. Further, the allegations of the complaint would show that the sexual harassment by making video calls and messages, thereby desiring sexual favour and outraging the modesty of the complainant is only against one Ramakrishna, who is arrayed as A.1 and who is not a party to the present criminal petition and as such the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence against any one of the petitioners. 17. 17. Further, it is the contention of the petitioners that the 2 nd respondent- complainant is habituated in lodging false reports against innocent people, under the provisions of SC and ST Act, taking advantage of her legal profession and her caste and used to settle the cases by extracting money from them. Moreover, the 2 nd respondent lodged so many complaints against innocent people and extracted money for unlawful considerations. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to a list of complaints alleged to have been made by the 2 nd respondent- complainant, which are described in the form of a table, out of which most of the cases are closed as mistake of fact, civil in nature, and compromised etc. 18. In the above background of the case, this court is of the considered view that there were no specific allegations attributed against the petitioners, more so, when the 2 nd respondent-complainant is habituated in lodging false complaints against innocent people. Further, the entire allegations made in the complaint are against one Ramakrishna, who is arrayed as A.1 and not against any one of the petitioners. Therefore, since no offence is made out against the petitioners/A.2, A.3 and A.4 specifically, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.4, A.2 and A.3 in Crime No.325 of 2019 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, are hereby quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioners/A.4 A.2 and A.3 are concerned. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed.